United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Re
Laboratory
Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
EPA-600/S2-82-096 Mar. 1983
Project Summary
Industrial Residue
Management Alternatives for
Allegheny County
(Pittsburgh) Pennsylvania
E. J. Martin, J. J. David, Jr., and F. M. Pfeffer
Major generators of wastewater treat-
ment, air pollution control, and produc-
tion process residues in Allegheny County
(Pittsburgh). Pennsylvania, were iden-
tified and contacted for the determi-
nation of current and future amounts
of residues generated. Data developed
through the survey and a literature
review were utilized to estimate total
residue generated by all industrial sources
within the county. Estimates for 45
categories of industrial residues are
presented for 1977 and 1983.
Information is presented on current
industrial residue reclamation, treat-
ment, and disposal practices in the
county. A computer analysis of costs
for transporting wastes to several pro-
posed central treatment facility loca-
tions within the county was per-
formed.
Three alternatives for managing
projected residue quantities within the
county were formulated. A cost an-
alysis of the alternatives established
that an environmentally acceptable
management plan for all residues
generated within the county could be
implemented at a total cost compar-
able to maintaining existing prac-
tices.
The research described in this article
has been funded wholly or in part by
the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency through grant S-
803550-01 to Allegheny County (Pitts-
burgh), Pennsylvania.
This Project Summary was devel-
oped by EPA's Robert S. Kerr Envi-
ronmental Research Laboratory. Ada.
OK. to announce key findings of the
research project that is fully docu-
mented in a separate report of the
same title (see Project Report ordering
information at back).
Introduction
The objectives of the study were as
follows:
1. Determine distribution, volume,
and characteristics of industrial
wastewaters and sludges in Alle-
gheny County.
2. Determine best practical treatment
for industrial sludge volume and
characteristics for the area treat-
ment plants.
3. Investigate future expansion as to
types of wastes and volumes.
4. Develop alternatives for collection,
transport, storage, disposal, and
recycling of the area wastes.
5. Develop a complete county treat-
ment management system.
All major industries in Allegheny
County with greater than 500 emplo-
yees and wastewater flow greater than
0.1 mgd were contacted by letter or
telephone. Additional information
sources were previous surveys, permit
applications, discharge permits, esti-
mates made from values cited in the
literature for specific treatment proc-
esses, and production and employment
-------
data. It was understood that
among the utilized data, there would be
information obtained by the Allegheny
County Sanitation Authority (ALCOSAN)
through direct sampling and analyses
and that this ALCOSAN information
would account for at least 50 percent of
the total industrial waste-
water flow in the county.
The grantee obtained data from 234
industries, of which the data were veri-
fied for 131 industries by the ALCOSAN
laboratory or, for the steel companies,
by the EPA's Denver Enforcement Labora-
tory. The total volume of industrial waste-
water flow reported by the 234 indus-
tries was 1,392 mgd; the total volume
reported by the 131 sources was 1,377
mgd, or 99 percent of the total.
Conclusions
1. Large quantities of sludges and other
process residues from wastewater
treatment, air cleaning, and indus-
trial manufacturing operations are
produced each day in Allegheny
County, and the disposal of these
residues places a significant burden
on industry. As residue quantities
increase and disposal options become
more constrained because of new
laws and regulations, the disposal
costs will increase.
2. Steel mills and other primary metal
i ndustries, plati ng a nd coati ng opera -
tions, foundries, nonferrous metal
industries, food industries and others
with residue disposal requirements
will be most directly affected. The
lack of a satisfactory disposal pro-
gram for residues could adversely
affect jobs in Allegheny County.
3. Treatment processes and residue
disposal alternatives which will meet
the regulatory requirements likely
to be in force within^the next 20
years have been evaluated. Prelim-
inary cost estimates based on residue
quantities in 1985 have been devel-
oped for three alternatives. These
alternatives are:
• Alternative A—Initial program using
existing technology, excluding resi-
dues for which disposal practices.
are considered best state of
the art.
• Alternative B—Later program using
technology under development, again
excluding residues for which dispos-
al practices are considered best
state of the art.
• Alternative C—Similar to Alterna-
tive B but excluding most residues
from steel industry and from publicly
owned sewage treatment plants.
Steel industry and publicly owned
sewage treatment plant residues
are of such magnitude that solu-
tions other than centralized facil-
ities may be selected.
For the categories of wastes
included in Alternative A, current
quantities and disposal costs are
presented. Costs and quantities for
the three alternatives and com-
parable current costs and quanti-
ties are presented with and without
transportation.
Using available technology (Alter-
native A), a system can be im-
plemented with annual costs approx-
imately the same as current levels
but with the new system handling
approximately 40 percent more
residues.
Preliminary assessment of Alter-
native B, which depends to some
extent on technology development
and therefore requires further eval-
uation, indicates that annual costs
and costs per ton should not exceed
the costs for Alternative A. Alterna-
tive B would require a considerably
larger capital cost but would be
handling a substantially larger
amount of residue. Both alterna-
tives (A and B) include environ-
mentally acceptable treatment, hand-
ling, and disposal techniques.
Alternative C, which does not
include most of the steel wastes but
is directed at the smaller gener-
ators of wastes, would cost less
than one-half of current costs on an
annual basis but would handle only
about one-third of the wastes cur-
rently being handled. Unit costs for
Alternative C would be higher than
the unit costs for the other alter-
natives considered because of los-
ses in economies of scale.
4. Assuming no change in the current
disposal techniques and no increase
in current unit cost estimates, the
annual costs for disposing of future
quantities in a facility that would
meet environmental standards is
within the range of and probably
less than existing cost.
5. Unit costs—per ton of residue handled,
treated, and disposed of decrease
with increasing quantity of residue
managed in a central system. The
value of recovered resources such
as metals, acids, and solvents, is
likely to reduce unit costs even
further. The range of types of residue
to be managed in the county has the
effect of reducing unit disposal costs,
since the value of recovered re-
sources from one treatment-disposal
unit operation could offset costs of
others.
Recommendations
Given the current climate of intense
public and regulatory scrutiny of hazard-
ous waste disposal practices, the county
should act immediately to insure that
acceptable treatment, disposal, and recy-
cling outlets remain available. Lack of
such a comprehensive plan could result
i n the stagnation or decline in the industrial
base of the county in the next decade.
The development of a county-wide
residue management and disposal system
should proceed to the next phase—prelimi-
nary design. This phase should include
securing agreements with residue suppli-
ers, final selection of unit processes,
and more detailed cost estimates.
Edward J. Martin and Joseph J. David, Jr., are with Environmental Quality
Systems, Inc.. Rockville. MD 20852.
Fred M. Pfoffer is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Industrial Residue Management Alternatives for
Allegheny County (Pittsburgh) Pennsylvania," (Order No. PB 83-133 488;
Cost: $22.00, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.O.Box 1198
Ada, OK 74820
ftU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 1983-659-017/7005
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Center for Environmental Research
Information
Cincinnati OH 45268
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
------- |